Just a Creep Motherfucker

hipsterlibertarian:

image

hipsterlibertarian:

Said the homeowner:

Our Patriot Garden pays for all of its costs in healthy food and lifestyle while having the lowest possible carbon footprint. It supplies valuable food while being attractive. I really do not understand why there is even a discussion. They will take our house before they take our Patriot Garden.

It is beyond absurd a city would make it illegal to grow food in one’s own yard. Even if the garden weren’t attractive — which it is — there is just no good argument (let alone moral basis) for this ridiculous rule.

"The administration blames Congress for making it harder to close Guantanamo, yet for a second year President Obama has signed damaging congressional restrictions into law. The burden is on Obama to show he is serious about closing the prison."

Perhaps the most telling data concerns the racial makeup of who goes to prison for gun violations. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, for Fiscal Year 2011, 49.6% of those sentenced to federal incarceration with a primary offense of firearms violations were black, 20.6% were Hispanic, and only 27.5% were white.

This is how gun laws actually work—those caught violating them go to prison. For the mere act of owning an illegal weapon—not necessarily for using it, not for threatening anyone with it, not for being irresponsible with it—people who have harmed no one are locked up in prison for years at a time. As with the rest of the criminal justice system, particularly the war on drugs, these laws disproportionately harm the poor and minorities. That is the inescapable reality of gun control.

It makes sense that blacks and others living in the inner city would rely more on private, illegal guns for self-defense. The police are unreliable at best in many of these communities. It also makes sense that minorities would be disproportionately hurt by these laws, because so many of the dynamics in play are the same as with the drug war—people are being punished for what they own, rather than what they have done to others; it is easier for police to go after those in poor neighborhoods than to search middle-class folks in nice neighborhoods; jurors approved by prosecutors tend to believe police testimony over the word of minority defendants; prosecutors tend to use discretion in possession crime cases that fall more painfully on the disenfranchised; public defenders offer inadequate services for those loads of court-appointed clients, and so forth.

hipsterlibertarian: This is such a cop-out. I mean, even putting aside political differences, this is such a cop-out. (It goes without saying that if we don’t put politics aside, the choice is even more appalling.) It’s not, however, a surprising cop-out: Of the 85 years Time has picked a Person of the Year to date, 22 years have featured a U.S. President (many get picked more than once). Another 28 have profiled other world leaders (either heads of government or heads of state). Of the remaining 35 years, quite a few honorees — think Ben Bernanke or Henry Kissinger — were extremely high-ranking government officials. The Atlantic puts it well: It’s impossible to think of a less interesting, more predictable choice than Barack Obama, who also won the award four years ago. Perhaps there’s someone who wasn’t aware that Obama’s reelection was the big story of the year, and perhaps he will pick up this issue during a routine dentist’s office visit in a few weeks and raise his eyebrows. But I doubt it. What’s more, the Person of the Year has been the winning presidential candidate in five of the last six election years, Conor Sen notes . Obama’s selection isn’t just boring. It’s a big missed opportunity. Just look at the other finalists —especially Malala Yousafzai , the Pakistani teen blogger shot in the head by the Taliban for her advocacy for women’s rights. As manufactured as the hoopla is, it could at least have been directed toward a worthy cause, one that faded far too quickly from the headlines after her October attack, overwhelmed by (yep) the presidential election and other news.  Clearly, Time suffers from a remarkable difficulty in looking anywhere other than government for noteworthy people and actions, despite the fact that this is obviously the very worst place to look. This addiction to the state is bizarre, and I, for one, will not mourn when Time goes the way of Newsweek.

hipsterlibertarian:

This is such a cop-out.

I mean, even putting aside political differences, this is such a cop-out. (It goes without saying that if we don’t put politics aside, the choice is even more appalling.)

It’s not, however, a surprising cop-out: Of the 85 years Time has picked a Person of the Year to date, 22 years have featured a U.S. President (many get picked more than once). Another 28 have profiled other world leaders (either heads of government or heads of state). Of the remaining 35 years, quite a few honorees — think Ben Bernanke or Henry Kissinger — were extremely high-ranking government officials.

The Atlantic puts it well:

It’s impossible to think of a less interesting, more predictable choice than Barack Obama, who also won the award four years ago. Perhaps there’s someone who wasn’t aware that Obama’s reelection was the big story of the year, and perhaps he will pick up this issue during a routine dentist’s office visit in a few weeks and raise his eyebrows. But I doubt it. What’s more, the Person of the Year has been the winning presidential candidate in five of the last six election years, Conor Sen notes .

Obama’s selection isn’t just boring. It’s a big missed opportunity. Just look at the other finalists —especially Malala Yousafzai , the Pakistani teen blogger shot in the head by the Taliban for her advocacy for women’s rights. As manufactured as the hoopla is, it could at least have been directed toward a worthy cause, one that faded far too quickly from the headlines after her October attack, overwhelmed by (yep) the presidential election and other news. 

Clearly, Time suffers from a remarkable difficulty in looking anywhere other than government for noteworthy people and actions, despite the fact that this is obviously the very worst place to look.

This addiction to the state is bizarre, and I, for one, will not mourn when Time goes the way of Newsweek.

themikebilly: Scumbag Boehbama President Obama and Speaker John Boehner both claim to be for transparent government, but neither will release the details of their backroom dealings.

themikebilly:

Scumbag Boehbama

President Obama and Speaker John Boehner both claim to be for transparent government, but neither will release the details of their backroom dealings.

hipsterlibertarian:

chotai:

Ok, after reading over ALL of my crim procedure cases, here is my ultimate gratis advice as all of your future (hopefully, never) lawyers:

For

the

love

of

God,

if

you

have

drugs or other incriminating evidence

in your car

(or on you)

and a cop asks you if he can search it (or you)

SAY NO.

DO NOT SAY YES.

SAY NO. 

I mean don’t say HELL NO MOTHEFUCKER FUCK THE POLICE because that would be a suspicious answer which might give him reasonable suspicion to actual search it without your consent

BUT DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH. 

This also applies if you have no drugs. Or if your car is completely empty. Basically, don’t agree to let the police look in your car or on your person.

Especially if you live in a state with civil asset forfeiture and would like to keep your stuff.

themikebilly: Game of Drones The guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize sitting on his Drone Throne.

themikebilly:

Game of Drones

The guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize sitting on his Drone Throne.

barticles:

Another repulsive example of cops shooting dogs for no good reason. For the most part, they can do this without fear of repercussions.

If a police officer smashed a statue on your front lawn without good reason, he could be cited for destruction of property. It’s time for stronger statutes and ordinances protecting domestic companion animals.

(via hipsterlibertarian)